Warning...long post ahead (I know, big surprise)
A number of things to address and a lot of Bullcrap to say...so...I'll number them:
#1. Professor was very selective with who he taught blade.
I concur. It seemed that you'd better not only have a good darned reason for wanting to learn it, but he had to trust you as well. A couple things about Professor were, for one, he abhorred violence. He had been there, done that, and wasn't really interested in going back. Many of us can relate, I am sure. Two, he viewed the blade as a killing instrument. He did not have the modern tactical concept of the blade that we today have. In his mind, if you had a blade, the purpose was to kill, period.
This should explain why the focus of the art (Modern Arnis) at the seminars was stick training, then empty hand...then how it is "all the same." In his mind, you weren't supposed to be carrying around bolo's or daga's and chopping off heads. For the most part, he figured in a civilized environment (and keep in mind that just about anywhere U.S.A. -even eastside D-town- is civilized compared to the PI that he grew up in) you wouldn't be carrying anything. So, if you were attacked, you defended yourself with your empty hand, or you picked something up...and chances are that "something" would translate well to the stick. So...he taught us stick, and how it is all the same. He would sometimes say how it related to the blade, but this was more for historical reference, and for a "just in case." We did some knife disarms...empty hand vs. knife..."just in case." I never saw, at least in the Midwest or East coast, a seminar dedicated to "blade work".
So..you got blade if there was a specific purpose he had for showing you, and if he trusted you; not because you showed up at the seminar. Now, as it applies to me...for a long time I was not sure why I got the bits and pieces of the blade that I did. Although, today I teach some military guys out of sulfrage (when they're not in Iraq, as all my guys are right now), I certainly wasn't back then. I was in my late teens when I first started getting the applications!! So it wasn't like GM Kelly's situation for me, where he was teaching a bunch of operators at the time. I was not teaching operators. However, I bugged him, and I bugged him; and I remember saying to him that I wanted to understand how it was “the same”, and how it fit with the history of the art. The only thing I can come up with was that he taught me because he trusted me, number one, and that I wouldn't flaunt it around or use it in a bad way. And...as tempting as the ego can be, I KNEW that the minute I said to someone else "Look what Remy taught me," that would be the last time he taught me anything with the blade. I think that the second reason he taught me was because he felt comfortable that I wasn't bugging him about it so I could use it to kill, or to be a badass with it. I think he knew that at the time my reason for learning it was simply because I wanted a complete picture...to broaden my understanding of the art.
The above, of course, is just my perception of things...
#2. If Remy didn't want to teach the blade openly...then is it ethical for those who got it to teach it openly?
Boy...isn't that the big question with some of this stuff!? I don't claim to have the answer to this either, but I can offer my opinion on the matter. Please brace yourself for a very libertarian viewpoint on weapons...
I say that whether or not it is ethical to teach the blade openly depends on whom youÂ’re teaching it too, and why. Remy saw the blade as a killing tool, so he did not teach it openly. But he did teach it to those he trusted, and thought it O.K. to teach it to those who might have to use it in combat. (GM Kelly teaching military, for example).
However, I am not sure that Professor understood, or cared to know, the tactical self-defense approach to the blade. I am not sure he understood, or cared to understand, how to use the blade as a self-defense tool rather then an offensive tool. However, none of us are Remy. Bare with me on this tangent here, but the fact is, not everyone has Remy Presas attributes. I hate to sound like a hero worshipper here, but the man was practically fricken superhuman. I am thoroughly convinced that he would find/make a way to defend himself, and would succeed in almost any CQC situation. To kill him, you either had to be cancer, or a sniper bullet. With his attributes, one could sit back and say, "I am not carrying a knife...those are for killing!" Guess what...Remy wouldn't carry a gun either. However, I don't trust that my fiancé’s, for example, should say or do the same thing. She does not/ will never have Remy Presas attributes or fighting abilities. So...what is she to do if a larger, stronger male attacks her...especially if he is armed? This goes for anyone. Not everyone has lethal hands, not everyone has Remy Presas attributes… yet we all have the right to defend ourselves. So, we have the right to carry a firearm. We also have the right to carry knives. And...we have the rights to defend ourselves with these accordingly, and learn how accordingly.
So, my answer is that it is ethical to teach blade, because we all have the rights to defend ourselves. If it is taught in an ethical and prudent manner, and self-defense is advocated rather then "offense," then it shouldn't be a problem.
So, to define what I am saying, I say that you teach blade to fulfill the needs of the student. I have taught military men. In fact, I have an instructional DVD that is in Iraq right now, so they can have something to practice off of. SoÂ…why isn't it for sale on my website? Well, besides sh**ty production quality, WHAT I TEACH MILITARY IS NOT THE SAME THING I TEACH CIVILIANS! I am not going to teach a civilian how to close, rip out a guys throat or guts, then book to find a rifle. Sorry. However, I do teach civilians how to carry and use the blade. When I do this, I cover the legal definitions of lethal force, the legal requirements and restrictions by my state, and I show a prudent way to use the tool so you wonÂ’t be FOUND GUILTY by 12, or carried by 6.
Now, there is some value in learning stuff like the bolo, or like a traditional blade for instructional/historical/developmental reasons...outside what is practical or prudent. I teach my students that I am grooming to be instructors about the blade, and some of the darker aspects. I do this because for one, as instructors they need a complete picture for their own understanding. For two...I trust them, or they wouldn't be members of my group. However...they know that they are expected to be prudent with the information.
This leads us to the next question...
#3. Is it O.K. to market or sell blade stuff to the public, beyond “civilian self defense”?
Man...another toughie. I don't claim to have the right answer on this one either...just an opinion.
In my opinion, any idiot can go out and buy a gun, or some explosives, and go out an kill oodles of people. Even if guns were outlawed, the criminals could get them on the black market, and us civilians would be Screwed with a capital "S" for our own abilities to defend ourselves. Now...why would the guy intending to kill a bunch of people do so by eloquently training in a knife system, or through a knife video? Out of all the criminal behavior out there, you never see the headline, "Man kills thousands; Worden tactical folder and 'Water and Steel' video found on criminal!" It just doesn't happened that way because the criminal or crazy person is not going to invest in the time to learn from a martial artist, or a martial arts video, when that person can take the easy way out.
Now, lets pretend that the crazy person does rob a 7-11 with a Presas Bolo after watching an instructional tape, or a Worden Tactical Folder after an instructional seminar. Who's to blame? The crazy person, thatÂ’s who. The fact is, they are crazy. If the Worden blade or Presas blade was unavailable, they would have found something else to use to rob that store.
So, I don't get too uptight about what is out there for people to train from, nor do I think others should. Now, for myself (at least at this time) I don't feel comfortable teaching what I teach my military brothers to everyone...I still want to somewhat control that information. However, I don't expect everyone else out there to follow my standard. As far as I am concerned, ethics on this is not set in stone, and moral standards are going to vary. Whether or not it is ethical to teach blade has everything to do with your reasons behind it, IMHO. And...one cannot expect everyone else to adhere to one persons particular standard.
#4. So...then is it O.K. to market something, like a blade DVD, with the Presas name on it?
Another big question...and boy, I REALLY don't have the answer to this one.
I don't know if it is “right” to put the Presas name on my products or not. On the one hand...I want to attribute my stuff to my instructor(s), out of respect. On the other hand...I don't want to ride on any of my instructors coat tails, or cheapen their name by using it for marketing reasons.
However, the question is, where does one draw the line? I really don't know...and I hope that my seniors here like GM Kelly or Prof. Dan A., and the others that I know can give me their opinions.
My personal solution has been (if you look through my website) to not ride on even the Modern Arnis name. The name of my group is "Tulisan Eskrima Gild." Since what I have is not pure Modern Arnis, I do not use the Modern Arnis name, even though I have enough "authority" in the system to do whatever I want. My products (future products...heh...) will have my name on them, not anyone elseÂ’s. I am just not comfortable with representing someone elseÂ’s name other then my own. However, I give credit where it is due, because I think that is important. Yet, if I do something then it is a "Paul Janulis" production, not a "Presas" production, or anyone elseÂ’s production.
Anyways...this is my solution. And..this is what I think is right for me. However, I cannot expect everyone to follow my standards, as my standards aren't right for everyone. The only absolute here seems to be that there are no absolutes.
So (and sorry to point out the pink elephant in the room) IS IT O.K. THAT BRAM CALLED HIS PROGRAM BY THE PRESAS NAME? Well, I am not going to be upset over the issue. What is right for Paul may not be right for Bram. He doesn't claim superiority to the rest of us, nor does he claim to speak for anyone in the Presas family, the late Professor, or others. He claims he used the name to give respect to his late teacher. Since this is his reasoning, I can't see anything wrong with this or be angry with him for it...even if it is not something I would do myself.
#5. More clear clarification on the difference between a bush knife and fighting knife...
Different tools are used for different things. Today, we have knives that are used for combat. We also have knives used for utility. You could use both for utility, and for combat. So...I think that a slender, clip pointed bolo was designed for combat. However...I am sure that many used different bolo's for combat, and combat bolo's for fieldwork. The Filipino's distinguished them by thrusting (Tusok, or Ibak) or chopping (Tabak). As Halford confirmed, this applied to all bolo's, whether designed for combat or not. As I said before, the Filipino's did not distinguish between combat and non-combat tools by language. I feel that it is the design that distinguishes the tools.
Now...I am not sure why people get upset over the seemingly logical idea that someone would design a tool for a purpose in mind. I only am interested to understand the history behind the tool, to broaden my knowledge. Beyond that...you say tomato, I say tomato; and I am in agreement with GM Kelly and others that a bolo is a bolo is a bolo...
#6. Why wasn't the "Presas Bolo" in the pictures of his books...
Not having dug through my storage closet to dig out the books in many months...I thought that the bolo's in the pink book and the "practical art of eskrima" book WERE the "family design"...or of the same/similar design then the one I have on a stand in my bedroom? This was also the same design in a Dan Inosanto book when referring to WWII bolo knives, and also what looks to be the same identical design from the one the Bram has on his website here, called "The Remy Presas Bolo Set":
http://www.gunting-museum.com/CSSD-SC_Weapons/Bolo_Set/bolo_set.html
Now... If I am wrong, please correct me. If the "Presas Bolo" was the same design that other people used outside of the family, as I am guessing is the case, then fine. But it seems that this design was the preferred design by Professor.
Now...I do not know if this was truly a "family thing" a "regional thing" or simply, Professors personal preference. I say see what Ernesto, or Remy Jr. and family, or what the PI master have to say on that one.
#7. When I was given a bolo...
I was given a bolo in 95'. No big deal. I didn't take this to mean that I am the heir to the deadly Presas blade art, his high-ranking bolo king, or that this gave me outright permission to swing it around like my wangy and make outlandish claims with it. However...he did say it was "his family bolo."
Now...what the hell does that mean!? I don't know. I hate having to make conjectures at that sort of thing. I did not take it to mean that he gave me a family heirloom. He said a lot of things to make people feel good, so maybe he was just doing that. I think that most likely he meant that this was the preferred design of his families art.
Now...I don't know what Bram has. I don't know if he has something that originally belonged to Remy's uncle or dad or granddad...or if it was just the same design that they had. I only know what I got, and what I was told.
My opinion is that the family (uncle, dad, grand dad) had a preferred design rather then an heirloom...and I have a blade of that design on display in my bedroom that I got from the old man. My opinion may not be right, though, as I do not have all the facts...I only know what I was told/have.
Who is this Paul Janulis guy...and why is he talking...does he have any credibility to say anything?
I don't usually speak to my own credibility, or make claims to anything, so I am sure that some of you think that I am just some Internet joker. The answer is yes to both. I like to joke, and play online. But I do have some credibility. I don't claim superiority or anything, but I think that I have the rights to “a say” on my art(s) just like anyone else. Click on my website, and find the info on my rank and other things if your interested. Ask me if you’re curious. And fight me to the death highlander style if you want to absorb my powers..."because there can be only one!" lol...
Sorry for the loong one...
time to go chill in my tactical underwear...and ha-ha-haha-ha to all of you...I got the Jungle wrestling blow-up doll for my lonely nights instead of flares!
Peace...
Paul Janulis
